Monday, May 24, 2010

[5.50/10] The Wolfman (2010)

To start with the positive, "The Wolfman" looks great. Production design is excellent, and physical and CG effects are very good. Also the werewolf transformations were excellently-done. The film is very bleak and shot with barely any light to fully see what we are being exposed to. The atmosphere works really well. It completely sweeps you into a classic monster movie, which tells a tale of the impossible and the horrific. With a film like this, atmosphere is tremendously important. The mood has to be set so you can fully grasp the terror in the images on the screen. Looking at pure visual style, the film accomplishes just that, but there were some qualities that removed me from the atmosphere, one of which is the violence. Body dismemberment may be grotesque, but the fact is, it is not scary at all. "The Wolfman"'s plot is somewhat serviceable, though the lack of a strong villain is glaring. Not that Man-vs-Himself wouldn't work in this situation, just that they attempt to include a weak villain that never really grabs attention. A lot of the fault is on the characters. Del Toro plays it straight, which may have been the wrong choice for this film. Blunt is plenty ladylike and gorgeous, but forgettable. Hopkins is horribly disappointing as Lawrence's father, spouting off wannabe-epic dialogue that mostly falls flat or seems random. The best performance comes from Hugo Weaving as Detective Freddy Aberline. He gives his character the life he needs to appear as both a concerned inspector of the law, while also a figure that could potentially see his duty as above common humanity. Overall, despite being mediocre, Joe Johnston's werewolf flick is moderately entertaining and visually compelling. "The Wolfman" definitely has claws, but they are just not as sharp as one would like them to be.

10 comments:

I knew this was going to be seriously horrible the moment they gave the role to Del Toro. He just doesn't have a star potential nor talent. Although I generally like Hopkins, he is one of those critically acclaimed actors who, if you ask me, more often than not has really bad performances like Ben Kingsley, whom I'd add in this category as well.

Well, 'horrible' isn't the exact word that fully describes "The Wolfman". 'Mediocre' would be more accurate, because the film really wasn't that bad.I don't think the problem lies in Del Toro's performance or in his lack of star power. Latest just isn't true! I've seen him in great movies, such as "21 Grams", "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas", "Che", "Traffic" etc., and his acting has always been wonderful!Hopkins' acting ranges from bad to amazing, but I generally like him, too. ;)May I add Robert De Niro and Al Pacino to your "critically acclaimed actors"? I'm really sick of those two and of listening what "great actors" they both are :)

yes,Nebster, but good acting isn't really the same as having a star power. There are many other good actors who could never carry the whole movie themselves because they just don't have the looks and charisma for that, Del Toro being one of them. He can carry the lead in some alternative movies, smaller actions etc, but not in huge blockbusters. I fully agree on Pacino and De Niro. None of them has ever really touched me with their roles, and Pacino generally has very obnoxious and pompous way of acting.